By: Adv. Shashank S. Narvekar, Councillor MMC.
Within the complex architecture of any professional ecosystem, the legal framework provides robust mechanisms through which an individual may articulate a grievance or formalize a complaint when impropriety occurs. These statutory provisions are quintessential to ensuring institutional accountability and maintaining a disciplined environment. However, a jarring dichotomy exists in practice: the individual who seeks recourse through these very provisions often becomes a target of derision rather than the beneficiary of an objective inquiry.
It is frequently observed that when a complainant initiates proceedings against an erring individual, the peers or associates of that person respond with instinctive defensiveness. Rather than scrutinizing the allegations through an impartial lens, they often coalesce to shield the erring individual by marginalizing, isolating or humiliating the complainant. Consequently, the discourse is diverted from the substantive merits of the alleged misconduct to a cynical interrogation of the complainant’s motives or character.
Such behavior is symptomatic of an institutional malaise. At times, misplaced professional loyalty is prioritized over the tenets of accountability and ethical integrity. An unwritten code, the compulsion to protect “one of our own”, frequently dictates the response to allegations, irrespective of their gravity. As a result the complainant is often stigmatized as a provocateur or someone harboring clandestine ulterior motives.
This pervasive attitude serves as a significant deterrent to those who might otherwise utilize available lawful mechanisms. When the workforce observes that filing a complaint invites social hostility and systemic humiliation, silence becomes the preferred survival strategy. Over time, this enforced reticence allows illegal practices to proliferate unchecked, ultimately eroding the very credibility of the institution.
It is imperative to recognize the legal maxim Ubi Jus, Ibi Remedium; where there is a right, there must be a remedy. An individual who petitions a competent authority or invokes a legal provision is merely exercising a right enshrined in law. Such an action should not be interpreted as an adversarial strike against colleagues, but as a legitimate endeavor to resolve a grievance through the prescribed legal channels.
Professional communities must, therefore, cultivate a culture where grievances can be voiced without the specter of ridicule or social reprisal. Shielding an erring individual must never be conflated with the dismissal or suppression of a complaint. True adherence to professional ethics necessitates an environment of transparency, equity and profound respect for the rights of those who possess the fortitude to speak up. To sum up, the quote by Martin Luther King Jr.
”In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”
